"Richard C. Cobbe" <cobbe at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> For list-related administrative tasks:
>http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme>> Lo, on Wednesday, August 11, Matthias Felleisen did write:
>>> The C people didn't get this any "rigther" than the Scheme people.
>> They were forced to report as many type and syntax errors in one
>> pass as possible because they were and are batch people, who just
>> don't understand how incremental work helps people.
>> Right, but as execution time increases, the distinction between batch
> and interactive development decreases. It's really not very hard to
> write a Scheme program whose execution time (by which I mean time
> between hitting the `execute' button and getting a prompt back) is
> comparable to running make.
>> If someone can suggest a testing strategy that doesn't require hitting
> execute after every change (or even most of them), then I'd love to hear
> about it.
In other Scheme and Lisp systems, hitting an error doesn't return you
to top level. Instead, it creates a nested REPL with a continuation
that re-attempts whatever caused the error. Within this nested REPL,
you can edit and debug the code and proceed without losing your state.